> ICANN's I Can't Attitude Alienating Internet Community by Jim Wagner
the title is bullshit. Which 'internet community' is this again?
and adversaries are cranking up the rhetoric as they get ready for the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers meetings starting Friday in Stockholm.
doubt that it's going to have QUITE the fury of the WTO protests..
> ICANN officials
have a raft of topics up for debate in a series of meetings that last until Monday,
including the ratification of its 2001-2002 budget, finalizing approval of the .name
domain and increasing the application fee for new registrars to $2,500. Also up for
discussion is the establishment of new regional Internet registries.
In other words,
some bureaucracy, some technical stuff, and mostly just ICANN doing its job. Mundane.
The agenda is sure to fuel the flames of many ICANN critics
Umm, tell me exactly
how a budget, the .name domain (don't tell me you're going to dispute THAT as well),
a registrar application fee, and the idea of new RIRs constitute fuel for any flaming?
who feel the self-styled Internet governing body is overreaching its authority and
alienating the worldwide community.
Your imaginary 'community' again. A handful
of ORSCers and people on new.net's payroll do not a community make.
So out come the press releases, designed to whet the appetites for all interested
parties. On one side, you have the pro-ICANN contingent (made up largely of U.S.
government officials, VeriSign and ICANN officials) and on the other, those against
ICANN's recent actions (made up of the rest of the world).
Got Bullshit? Why is
it that every anti-whatever group thinks that they have the support of the rest of
the world? Unless, of course, your world is limited to people who want to fragment
> Earlier this week, Stuart Lynn, ICANN president, posted a
document on his site calling for the establishment of a unique, authoritative root
server for all domain name server (DNS) activity.
That's a unique ROOT, not a unique
SERVER, dumbass. But then again, minor factual errors are nothing when you've got
major ones throughout.
> Not surprisingly, ICANN would be that unique root server,
a policy that would stand in direct opposition to the many alternate domain root
servers already located throughout the world, many of which have been around for
years and operating their own domain name extension registries.
Knowing full well
that their TLDs weren't going to be seen by the wider world, but thinking that they
would somehow be considered official.
> In his call to war, Lynn's document
states that alternate roots impede ICANN's mandate by the U.S. Department of Commerce
to bring stability and harmony to the Internet names and numbering system. As such,
"ICANN's stability-preservation mandate requires that it avoid acting in a manner
that encourages their proliferation" and "give no preference to those who choose
to work outside of these processes and outside of the policies engendered by this
*finds the Lynn quotes an oasis of sense in the desert of this
> Nowhere is this policy more visible than ICANNs decision this year to
include seven global top-level domains (gTLDs) to the existing crop that includes
.com, .net, and .org. One of the approved domains, .biz, has been in use by alternate
root server Atlantic Root Network, Inc., for years.
And that matters... why?
> It's a decision that seemingly runs counter to ICANNs supposed goal of bringing
stability to the Internet, critics say, because no action could bring more instability
than allowing another company to sell already-existing domain names.
Cannot find server
Hmm. Doesn't exist.
> Naseem Javed, president
of ABC Namebank and author of "Domain Wars" said the decision by ICANN to run with
its own version of .biz is proof-positive of ICANN's missed opportunity to foster
inclusion in the Internet community.
Translation: They won't play with us! WAAAAAHHH!!!
> "This is proof that time and time again ICANN has been very inconsistent
in their policies and at times show a logic that is not in accordance to the long-term
safety and long-term procedures of this whole system," Javed said.
It completely fucks our presumptuous name-grabbing asses over, so we have no choice
but to spout rhetoric in the hope of convincing enough idiots to shout ICANN down.
(Not gonna work, buddy.)
> Javed said ICANN had a chance years ago to sew up
the Internet community under one root server, a move he saw as a positive step for
the Internet community.
One single SERVER? So if the one server goes down, the
whole Net is screwed? Hey, Javed- find your ass. Here's a flashlight. You have two
But if you mean one single root SYSTEM, that's what ICANN _is_ doing, and
that's what everyone is complaining about.
> But because of the missed opportunity,
its possible ICANN will have to rely on a standard's-based platform working with
other root servers.
And they would work with those idiots WHY?
> Two papers
written for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Wednesday by Jason Higgs of
Higgs Communications lay the groundwork for a proposed virtual inclusive root.
This "super root" would be considered the "sum of the consensus between all root
zones on the public Internet," Higgs said, a patchwork quilt of root servers managed
by someone above both the alternate root servers and ICANN's root server.
Another proposal is that ICANN endorse the other root servers, coordinating domain
name selections to avoid name collisions.
Both proposals would instantly grant
worldwide legitimacy to servers who only serve a small area. Hey, if this crap about
accepting the alternates really happens (yeah right) and I go buy a server and make
a program to take all other TLDs, can I have them accepted in the system too?
Alternate 1: Some other TLDs
Alternate 2: Some more TLDs
Everything else (that'll be $500 a month, pal)
Hey, I'm starting to like the sound
> It's unlikely to happen, unless the organization is ready to recant
its earlier .biz selection, based on the Internet credo of first-come, first-served.
That's unlikely since NeuLevel has been a long-time contributor to ICANNs coffers.
Since we haven't thrown enough mud, it's time to accuse them of taking bribes.
So, until that time it's likely the number of name collisions will increase as NeuLevel,
the .biz registry, starts signing up domains. Because its never happened before,
its unclear what will happen when an Internet user types in the URL for a .biz domain
name that's been "double-dipped," but what's clear is ICANNs apparent disregard for
Again, we're going to grant worldwide legitimacy to a tiny alt-root
because it serves our purposes, spouting more bullshit about collisions when the
reality is that the vast majority of the Internet isn't going to have any problems
> One possible outcome of this domain name double dipping, Lynn said
in his document, was the likelihood of "cache poisoning." Because the DNS assumes
there is only one root in the world, he said, it could lead to misdirected Web pages
and confusion for the server, opening the door to malicious hacker attacks.
is why alt-roots, being a greater security risk, should not under any circumstances
be allowed into the authoritative root system.
> Thrown into the mix is the
recent idealabs! venture at New.net, which introduces its own domain name extensions.
THAT who's been behind this shit?!
You want to know what happens to everything
THAT company gets involved in? Go check out www.fuckedcompany.com and search the
archives. You're going to see that name a LOT...
> The company has gained popularity
in recent weeks for its catchy domain name extensions for sale, including .xxx, .shop,
.inc., .family and .tech.
But it's probably going to go out of business anyway,
so who gives a damn? Anyone dumb enough to buy a new.net TLD, well.. a fool and his
> While an alternate root server like the others around the world, it
has gotten traction by signing the top Internet service providers (ISPs) in the U.S.
and around the world to its program. Juno Online Services last week joined ISPs EarthLink,
Inc., Excite@Home and NetZero (an idealabs! Company) in providing its subscribers
access to the alternate Web extensions.
Which is why ICANN should stomp on them
as soon as possible before the cancer grows any larger. But like I said, they're
probably going to end up on www.fuckedcompany.com sooner or later anyway..
New.net proposes ICANN continue in its role as a technical body but no longer issue
new TLDs. Instead, let "innovators" develop their own TLDs and, if successful, get
included in the ICANN root server as a matter of course.
> "We believe
that the decisions about which TLDs to release and who should administer them would
benefit tremendously from...market forces rather than central control by one organization,"
said David Hernand, New.net chief executive officer. "By using the market to create
a climate for innovation in the DNS, all Internet users will benefit."
We will benefit and it sounds catchy, so go along with it.
proposal is not surprising, considering its aggregate base of 42 million Web users
already viewing its root server, a distinct advantage over other alternate roots.
since New.net already is stepping on the TLD toes of other alt-roots, be prepared
to become the target of their fury. ICANN has legitimacy. You don't.
An interim report released by the NGO (non-governmental organizations) and Academic
ICANN Study (NAIS) Thursday weighs in with its own conclusions of the ICANN infrastructure.
We can't just say things, we need to make up official-sounding organizations to say
them for us.
> The NAIS has been trying to figure out what ICANN's role
in the Internet entails, and how the organization is fulfilling its mandate by the
Commerce Department to include bottom-up participation by the world community.
If it's not what we want, it must not be "participation by the world community".
When formed, ICANN was expected to be a fairly even mix of policy wonks and techies
busily plotting the best course for worldwide Internet domain names, ruled by a board
> Nine of the 19 directors would be selected from within ICANN
from the domain name supporting organization (DNSO), address supporting organization
(ASO) and protocol supporting organization (PSO). Nine at-large directors would be
determined by worldwide elections, to ensure the will of individual people would
be served. The 19th director would be the ICANN president and chief executive officer
in a tie-breaker/mediator role.
What is the point of trying to elect ICANN officials
anyway? Who's doing the electing? The vast majority of people don't understand the
> This mix of at-large and appointed directors is what
sold the international community on the ICANN at its foundation, and lent the agency
Uh-uh. The U.S. government GAVE ICANN instant legitimacy, which
was supported by agreements with other countries.
> But for some reason,
that never happened. The nine directors from the DNSO, ASO and PSO were selected,
but only five at-large directors were elected, in a process that left many advocates
skeptical. What's more, ICANN officials filled in the remaining four at-large directors
slots with its own appointees, who have yet to be replaced.
of this, many now consider the group the effective equivalent of a top-down government
agency trying to enforce its own rules on the worldwide community.
'worldwide community' again.
> The NAIS report states that "while governments
play a role in ICANN through the government advisory committee, there are many reasons
why that role is a limited one" and that "governments are viewed with skepticism
as insufficient or a poor fit for Internet management where rapid change, technical
expertise and responsiveness to new social developments are needed."
why ICANN was created in the first place.
> Making matters worse, the elected
directors of the at-large membership are due for re-election next year, and a report
detailing improvements to the current voting process will not be completed by next
month's deadline. In November 2001, the final voting mechanism is supposed to be
> Knowing the June deadline is impossible to meet, NAIS officials
say meeting the November deadline is "essential."
Again, you ascribe legitimacy
to yourselves by hiding under "NAIS".
"Every day that passes without resolving
this issue decreases the legitimacy of decisions that ICANN is making," the report
Well, I conclude that you're a bunch of idiots. And since neither of
us has any real authority here, and I'm smarter than you are, my conclusion prevails.